US8141632B2 - Method for hydraulic fracture dimensions determination - Google Patents
Method for hydraulic fracture dimensions determination Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US8141632B2 US8141632B2 US12/302,399 US30239907A US8141632B2 US 8141632 B2 US8141632 B2 US 8141632B2 US 30239907 A US30239907 A US 30239907A US 8141632 B2 US8141632 B2 US 8141632B2
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- fracture
- fracturing fluid
- fluid
- fracturing
- polymer
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Expired - Fee Related, expires
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims description 27
- 239000012530 fluid Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 114
- 229920000642 polymer Polymers 0.000 claims abstract description 38
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 32
- 239000000706 filtrate Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 25
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 16
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 16
- 238000011084 recovery Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 10
- 238000006073 displacement reaction Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 8
- 238000012821 model calculation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 7
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 claims description 19
- 239000008398 formation water Substances 0.000 claims description 7
- 239000000700 radioactive tracer Substances 0.000 claims description 5
- 244000007835 Cyamopsis tetragonoloba Species 0.000 claims description 4
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 description 11
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 7
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 6
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000035699 permeability Effects 0.000 description 3
- QAOWNCQODCNURD-UHFFFAOYSA-N Sulfuric acid Chemical compound OS(O)(=O)=O QAOWNCQODCNURD-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000007423 decrease Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000001914 filtration Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000003384 imaging method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000007788 liquid Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000004807 localization Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000005086 pumping Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000004088 simulation Methods 0.000 description 2
- ISWSIDIOOBJBQZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N Phenol Chemical compound OC1=CC=CC=C1 ISWSIDIOOBJBQZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 238000012937 correction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008878 coupling Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000010168 coupling process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005859 coupling reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004069 differentiation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000009826 distribution Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229930195733 hydrocarbon Natural products 0.000 description 1
- 150000002430 hydrocarbons Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 238000002347 injection Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000007924 injection Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000000155 isotopic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011545 laboratory measurement Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012544 monitoring process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005457 optimization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000035515 penetration Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000047 product Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000004445 quantitative analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002285 radioactive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005070 sampling Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000007787 solid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B43/00—Methods or apparatus for obtaining oil, gas, water, soluble or meltable materials or a slurry of minerals from wells
- E21B43/25—Methods for stimulating production
- E21B43/26—Methods for stimulating production by forming crevices or fractures
-
- E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
- E21—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; MINING
- E21B—EARTH OR ROCK DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
- E21B49/00—Testing the nature of borehole walls; Formation testing; Methods or apparatus for obtaining samples of soil or well fluids, specially adapted to earth drilling or wells
Definitions
- the invention relates to hydraulic fracture monitoring methods and particularly relates to determining the dimensions of the fractures resulting from hydraulic fracturing of a formation and may be applied in oil and gas fields.
- Formation hydraulic fracturing is a well-known method to stimulate hydrocarbons production from a well.
- a highly viscous liquid also known as a fracturing fluid
- a proppant is injected into the formation in order to create a fracture in a production zone and fill the created fracture with the proppant.
- the fracture must be located inside the production zone and not protrude into the adjacent strata as well as have sufficient length and width. Therefore, a fracture dimensions determination is a critical stage to ensure fracture process optimization.
- fracturing imaging ensuring assessment of spatial orientation of the fracture and its length during the fracturing job and are mostly based on localization of seismic events using passive acoustic emissions. This localization is ensured by the “cloud” of acoustic events, leading to a volume within which the fracture may be positioned.
- These acoustic emissions are microseisms resulting from either high pre-fracture stress concentration, or a decrease of the current stress around the fracture with the subsequent fracturing fluid flowing into the formation. At best these events are analyzed to obtain information about the source mechanism (energy, displacement field, stress drop, source dimensions etc.).
- the purpose of the claimed invention is the creation of a method for determination of the dimensions of a fracture resulting from hydraulic fracturing activities based on the analysis and simulation of the fracturing fluid pumping out after the fracturing.
- a numerical model of a fracturing fluid displacement from a fracture and a filtrate zone around the fracture by a formation fluid for a given set of formation parameters, fracturing data and predicted fracture dimensions is provided for calculating a recovered fracturing fluid concentration changes in a produced fluid during production after fracturing.
- produced fluid samples are taken periodically from a well mouth.
- a recovered fracturing fluid concentration in the samples is measured and then the measurement results are compared with the numerical simulation data and the fracture length is determined based on ensuring a match of the measurement results and model calculations.
- a polymer concentration change in the recovered fracturing fluid is also calculated as a function of time; additionally, a polymer concentration is determined in the samples and, by comparing the measurement results with the model calculations, a fracture width is determined.
- the fracturing fluid may also contain a tracer which differentiates the fracturing fluid from a formation water in situations where a significant amount of the formation water is present in the total production after fracturing.
- the determination of fracture dimensions is based on the results of the recovered fracturing fluid measurements analyzed on the basis of the fracture cleanup modeling.
- Fracture cleanup is a process of a fracturing fluid displacement (recovery) from a fracture and a filtrate zone around the fracture by a formation fluid.
- the analysis of a recovered fracturing fluid is the measurement of a recovered fracturing fluid concentration in a produced fluid as a function of time after the fracturing, and, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid, a concentration of a polymer in the recovered fracturing fluid.
- fracturing fluid filtrate or aqueous base of the fracturing fluid, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid
- a polymer component of the fracturing fluid in case of the polymer fracturing fluid
- the fracturing fluid is displaced from the fracture and from a filtrate zone around the fracture by a formation fluid.
- the fractured well produces (recovers) the fracturing fluid that was originally pumped during the fracturing job.
- Time behavior of a fracturing fluid concentration in a produced fluid is directly defined by the fracture and the filtrate zone cleanup process.
- a change of the ratio of the recovered fracturing fluid to the formation fluid in the produced fluid depends on the rate of the fracturing fluid filtrate displacement from the filtrate zone, and, consequently, on the rate of the formation fluid penetration into the fracture (through the filtrate zone) and coming out to the surface.
- the duration of the fracturing fluid filtrate displacement from the filtrate zone depends on the filtrate zone depth which, in turn, depends on the fracture length for a given volume of the injected fracturing fluid. Therefore, a change of the fracturing fluid concentration in the produced fluid at a given well yield depends on the fracture length.
- the fracturing fluid concentration at the beginning of production decreases faster when the fracture length is longer.
- the fracturing fluid filtrate coming from the filtrate zone also mixes with a polymer component inside the fracture.
- the change of a polymer (e.g., guar) concentration inside the fracture and, ultimately, in the recovered fracturing fluid depends on the fracturing fluid filtrate inflow into the fracture and on the polymer mass in a certain location inside the fracture.
- the volume of the fracturing fluid filtrate coming from the filtration zone depends on a filtrate zone depth, and, consequently, on the fracture length.
- the polymer distribution along the fracture length is proportional to the fracture width. Therefore, the change of the polymer concentration in the recovered fracturing fluid during the fracture cleanup depends both on the fracture length and width.
- FIG. 1 shows the change of the ratio of a fracturing fluid recovery rate Q f to the total production rate Q (i.e. the water cut) as a function of time (time t on the x axis is shown in hours) for a typical formation fracturing job in Western Siberia.
- a solid line corresponds with the calculation for a fracture with the length of 150 meters and width 5 mm, a dotted line—for a fracture with the length of 150 meters and width 2.5 mm, a dotted-and-dashed—for a fracture with the length of 220 meters and width 5 mm;
- FIG. 2 shows the results of the calculation of the change of a polymer concentration C in the recovered fracturing fluid (in g/l) for the same dimensions as the fractures in FIG. 1 (time t on the x axis is shown in hours);
- FIG. 3 shows the results of calculation and measurement of the change of ratio of the fracturing fluid recovery rate Q f to the total production rate Q as a function of time (time t on the x axis is shown in hours);
- FIG. 4 shows the results of calculation and measurement of the change of a polymer concentration C in the recovered fracturing fluid (in g/l) (time t on the x axis is shown in hours).
- a fracturing fluid which is in general a water-based high-viscosity fluid is injected into a well bore.
- the fracturing fluid is pumped under a pressure sufficient to create a fracture in a bottom-hole area.
- a fracturing fluid filtrate also penetrates into the formation around the fracture through a fracture surface.
- the fracturing fluid may also contain a tracer which provides for differentiation between the fracturing fluid and a formation water in situations where a significant amount of the formation water is present in the total production after the fracturing; the tracer may be represented by non-radioactive chemicals widely applied to assess water cross-flows (breakthroughs) between the wells.
- the well is put into production and samples of the fluid being produced are taken. Samples are taken near a well mouth using a method similar to the one usually applied to determine water cut. Samples are taken periodically throughout the entire period of the fracturing fluid recovery. For example, for typical post-fracturing well in Western Siberia the duration of the fracturing fluid recovery normally is 2-3 days, over this period product sampling is preferably made every 30 minutes during the first 7-10 hours, then—every hour throughout the remaining time. Then the samples are sent to a laboratory to measure the concentration of the recovered fracturing fluid in the produced fluid and the polymer concentration (for polymer fracturing fluids) in the recovered fracturing fluid.
- the samples are processed in a centrifuge to separate the fracturing fluid from the oil, in the way similar to the standard water cut measurement. It enables to determine the fracturing fluid content change in the total production throughout the recovery period reviewed. If a polymer fracturing liquid was used, the fracturing fluid separated from the oil is analyzed to measure the polymer concentration. In case of using guar polymer the methodology is based on the known method applying phenol and sulfuric acid. As a result the time dependence of the polymer concentration change in the recovered fracturing fluid is obtained.
- the model calculates the change of the fracturing fluid concentration in the produced fluid, and, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid, —change of the polymer concentration in the recovered fracturing fluid.
- the model input parameters look as follows:
- the parameters stated in 1-4 must be known from the formation properties, fracturing plan and data on the well productivity after the fracturing job.
- the fracture length and width are determined by comparing the results of the numerical modeling and laboratory measurements of the samples by means of making graphs, spreadsheets or computer calculations.
- the predicted fracture dimensions are updated in such a way as to obtain the approximation of the results of the modeling calculations and measurements using, for example, least square method or any other mathematical quantitative method of approximation degree assessment.
- the laboratory analysis of the recovered fracturing fluid includes measurements of the correlation of the fracturing fluid recovery rate and the total production rate (i.e. watercut) shown in FIG. 3 with a solid line and guar concentration (in g/l) in the recovered fracturing fluid, shown in FIG. 4 with a solid line.
- the fracture geometry needs to be corrected as follows: the fracture length must be increased by about 40% and the width must be reduced by about 30%. Such a correction is well aligned with the constancy of the proppant mass inside the crack, i.e. the crack total volume remains unchanged.
- the modeled prediction results may be improved by using tracers that provide for differentiating the formation water from the fracturing fluid in case of the presence of a substantial amount of the formation water in the total production after the fracturing.
Landscapes
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Geology (AREA)
- Mining & Mineral Resources (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Environmental & Geological Engineering (AREA)
- Fluid Mechanics (AREA)
- General Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Geochemistry & Mineralogy (AREA)
- Investigating Strength Of Materials By Application Of Mechanical Stress (AREA)
- Testing Resistance To Weather, Investigating Materials By Mechanical Methods (AREA)
- Examining Or Testing Airtightness (AREA)
Abstract
A numerical model of a polymer-based fracturing fluid displacement from a fracture and a filtrate zone by a formation fluid is provided for calculating a change of a fracturing fluid concentration in a produced fluid and for calculating a change of a polymer concentration in the recovered fracturing fluid. Throughout the entire fracturing fluid recovery the produced fluid samples are periodically taken from a well mouth. The fracturing fluid concentration and the polymer concentration in the samples are measured. The measurement results are compared with the model calculations and the fracture length and width are determined based on a match of the measurement results and the model calculations.
Description
The invention relates to hydraulic fracture monitoring methods and particularly relates to determining the dimensions of the fractures resulting from hydraulic fracturing of a formation and may be applied in oil and gas fields.
Formation hydraulic fracturing is a well-known method to stimulate hydrocarbons production from a well. During a formation fracturing job a highly viscous liquid (also known as a fracturing fluid) containing a proppant is injected into the formation in order to create a fracture in a production zone and fill the created fracture with the proppant. To ensure efficient use the fracture must be located inside the production zone and not protrude into the adjacent strata as well as have sufficient length and width. Therefore, a fracture dimensions determination is a critical stage to ensure fracture process optimization.
Currently a fracture geometry is determined using various technologies and methods. Best known are the methods (so-called fracturing imaging), ensuring assessment of spatial orientation of the fracture and its length during the fracturing job and are mostly based on localization of seismic events using passive acoustic emissions. This localization is ensured by the “cloud” of acoustic events, leading to a volume within which the fracture may be positioned. These acoustic emissions are microseisms resulting from either high pre-fracture stress concentration, or a decrease of the current stress around the fracture with the subsequent fracturing fluid flowing into the formation. At best these events are analyzed to obtain information about the source mechanism (energy, displacement field, stress drop, source dimensions etc.). Analyzing the results of these events, it is impossible to obtain direct quantitative information concerning the main fracture. Other methods are based on measuring the deformation of the earth using tiltmeters either from a surface or from a wellbore. All these methods are rather expensive due to the necessity of proper positioning of the sensors in an appropriate location with good mechanical coupling between the formation and measurement tools. Other methods ensure an approximate assessment of the fracture height based either on temperature variations or on the data obtained using isotopic tracers (tracer atoms). A review of the aforementioned imaging methods above is presented, e.g., in the following publication: Barree R. D., Fisher M. K. Woodroof R. A. (2002), “A practical Guide to Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Technologies”, SPE, paper 77442, presented at Annual Technological Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio, Tex., Sep. 29-Oct. 2, 2002.
The closest prior art is a method for hydraulic fracture dimensions determination, described in the USSR Certificate of Authorship No. 1298376, 1987. This method provides for injection of a fracturing fluid under pressure into a well bore, enabling the said fluid to create fractures near the well and to penetrate into them and further through the fracture surfaces into a formation filtration zone around the fractures. Then fluid flow parameters are measured. A disadvantage of this method is the necessity to use additional equipment and complicated calculations.
The purpose of the claimed invention is the creation of a method for determination of the dimensions of a fracture resulting from hydraulic fracturing activities based on the analysis and simulation of the fracturing fluid pumping out after the fracturing.
A numerical model of a fracturing fluid displacement from a fracture and a filtrate zone around the fracture by a formation fluid for a given set of formation parameters, fracturing data and predicted fracture dimensions is provided for calculating a recovered fracturing fluid concentration changes in a produced fluid during production after fracturing. After putting the well into production, throughout the entire period of a fracturing fluid recovery, produced fluid samples are taken periodically from a well mouth. A recovered fracturing fluid concentration in the samples is measured and then the measurement results are compared with the numerical simulation data and the fracture length is determined based on ensuring a match of the measurement results and model calculations.
During the numerical modeling, a polymer concentration change in the recovered fracturing fluid is also calculated as a function of time; additionally, a polymer concentration is determined in the samples and, by comparing the measurement results with the model calculations, a fracture width is determined.
The fracturing fluid may also contain a tracer which differentiates the fracturing fluid from a formation water in situations where a significant amount of the formation water is present in the total production after fracturing.
In accordance with this invention, the determination of fracture dimensions, namely—its length and width, is based on the results of the recovered fracturing fluid measurements analyzed on the basis of the fracture cleanup modeling. Fracture cleanup is a process of a fracturing fluid displacement (recovery) from a fracture and a filtrate zone around the fracture by a formation fluid. The analysis of a recovered fracturing fluid is the measurement of a recovered fracturing fluid concentration in a produced fluid as a function of time after the fracturing, and, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid, a concentration of a polymer in the recovered fracturing fluid.
During a formation fracturing job a fracturing fluid filtrate (or aqueous base of the fracturing fluid, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid) penetrates into the formation. Simultaneously, a polymer component of the fracturing fluid (in case of the polymer fracturing fluid) is trapped at the formation surface and stays within the crack fracture. When a well is put into production after the fracturing job, the fracturing fluid is displaced from the fracture and from a filtrate zone around the fracture by a formation fluid. Thus, at the beginning, the fractured well produces (recovers) the fracturing fluid that was originally pumped during the fracturing job.
Time behavior of a fracturing fluid concentration in a produced fluid is directly defined by the fracture and the filtrate zone cleanup process. A change of the ratio of the recovered fracturing fluid to the formation fluid in the produced fluid depends on the rate of the fracturing fluid filtrate displacement from the filtrate zone, and, consequently, on the rate of the formation fluid penetration into the fracture (through the filtrate zone) and coming out to the surface. The duration of the fracturing fluid filtrate displacement from the filtrate zone depends on the filtrate zone depth which, in turn, depends on the fracture length for a given volume of the injected fracturing fluid. Therefore, a change of the fracturing fluid concentration in the produced fluid at a given well yield depends on the fracture length. Thus, for the same total volume of the fracturing fluid filtrate in the filtrate zone the fracturing fluid concentration at the beginning of production decreases faster when the fracture length is longer.
In a case wherein a polymer fracturing fluid is used during a fracture cleanup process, the fracturing fluid filtrate coming from the filtrate zone also mixes with a polymer component inside the fracture. The change of a polymer (e.g., guar) concentration inside the fracture and, ultimately, in the recovered fracturing fluid, depends on the fracturing fluid filtrate inflow into the fracture and on the polymer mass in a certain location inside the fracture. On the one hand, the volume of the fracturing fluid filtrate coming from the filtration zone depends on a filtrate zone depth, and, consequently, on the fracture length. On the other hand, for the same polymer concentration inside the fracture the polymer distribution along the fracture length is proportional to the fracture width. Therefore, the change of the polymer concentration in the recovered fracturing fluid during the fracture cleanup depends both on the fracture length and width.
The claimed method for the determination of formation fracture dimensions is performed as follows. A fracturing fluid which is in general a water-based high-viscosity fluid is injected into a well bore. The fracturing fluid is pumped under a pressure sufficient to create a fracture in a bottom-hole area. During the fracturing job a fracturing fluid filtrate also penetrates into the formation around the fracture through a fracture surface. The fracturing fluid may also contain a tracer which provides for differentiation between the fracturing fluid and a formation water in situations where a significant amount of the formation water is present in the total production after the fracturing; the tracer may be represented by non-radioactive chemicals widely applied to assess water cross-flows (breakthroughs) between the wells.
In case of a polymer fracturing fluid, only a water base (filtrate) of the fracturing fluid penetrates into the formation, whereas, due to their large size, the polymer molecules cannot penetrate into the formation and remain inside the fracture. Therefore, when the fracturing fluid is being pumped out to the surface, the formerly pumped polymer stays inside the fracture and the fracture itself is surrounded by the fracturing fluid water base.
After the fracturing job, the well is put into production and samples of the fluid being produced are taken. Samples are taken near a well mouth using a method similar to the one usually applied to determine water cut. Samples are taken periodically throughout the entire period of the fracturing fluid recovery. For example, for typical post-fracturing well in Western Siberia the duration of the fracturing fluid recovery normally is 2-3 days, over this period product sampling is preferably made every 30 minutes during the first 7-10 hours, then—every hour throughout the remaining time. Then the samples are sent to a laboratory to measure the concentration of the recovered fracturing fluid in the produced fluid and the polymer concentration (for polymer fracturing fluids) in the recovered fracturing fluid.
In the laboratory the samples are processed in a centrifuge to separate the fracturing fluid from the oil, in the way similar to the standard water cut measurement. It enables to determine the fracturing fluid content change in the total production throughout the recovery period reviewed. If a polymer fracturing liquid was used, the fracturing fluid separated from the oil is analyzed to measure the polymer concentration. In case of using guar polymer the methodology is based on the known method applying phenol and sulfuric acid. As a result the time dependence of the polymer concentration change in the recovered fracturing fluid is obtained.
To assess fracture dimensions a numerical model of a fracturing fluid displacement from the fracture and the filtrate zone by a formation fluid is used (see, for example, Entov V. M., Turetskaya F. D., Maksimenko A. A, Skobeleva A. A. “Modeling of the Fracturing Crack Cleanup Process”, Abstracts of the Reports of the 6th Scientific and Practical Conference “Current Problems in the State and Development of Russian Oil and Gas Complex” dedicated to the 75th Anniversary of Russian State Gubkin Oil and Gas University, Jan. 26-27, 2005, Section 6 “Automation, Modeling and Utility Supply for Oil and Gas Industry Processes”, pp. 12-13).
The model calculates the change of the fracturing fluid concentration in the produced fluid, and, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid, —change of the polymer concentration in the recovered fracturing fluid. The model input parameters look as follows:
1. The formation permeability and porosity, reservoir pressure, production interval height, formation oil viscosity.
2. Well yield or bottom-hole pressure during the fracturing fluid pumping out.
3. Total volume of the fracturing fluid, mass of the polymer and mass of the proppant pumped into the formation during the fracturing job, the proppant permeability and porosity, fracturing fluid viscosity.
4. Relative phase permeability values in the formation and in the pressed proppant in the fracture.
5. Predicted length and, in case of using a polymer fracturing fluid, predicted width of the fracture.
The parameters stated in 1-4 must be known from the formation properties, fracturing plan and data on the well productivity after the fracturing job. The fracture length and width are determined by comparing the results of the numerical modeling and laboratory measurements of the samples by means of making graphs, spreadsheets or computer calculations.
The fracture length and width must be selected upon the results of the approximation of two various data sets:
-
- 1) Changes in the fracturing fluid concentration in the total production obtained from numerical calculations and measured in a laboratory,
- 2) Changes in a polymer concentration obtained from numerical calculations and measured in a laboratory.
In case of the results non-alignment the predicted fracture dimensions are updated in such a way as to obtain the approximation of the results of the modeling calculations and measurements using, for example, least square method or any other mathematical quantitative method of approximation degree assessment.
To illustrate the method proposed an example of comparing the results of the recovered fluid analysis with the model calculation of the fracture cleanup process after the typical formation fracturing in Western Siberia is given as follows. The laboratory analysis of the recovered fracturing fluid includes measurements of the correlation of the fracturing fluid recovery rate and the total production rate (i.e. watercut) shown in FIG. 3 with a solid line and guar concentration (in g/l) in the recovered fracturing fluid, shown in FIG. 4 with a solid line. The results of modeling calculations of the fracture cleanup of the fracturing fluid when the fracture geometry is taken from the fracturing work design obtained using typical engineering software used to calculate the fracture growth during fracturing job, shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 with a dotted line. As we can see from FIGS. 3-4 (the difference between the solid and the dotted lines); the measured data and the modeling results do not match very well. To obtain a better match of the measurement results with the modeling calculations (see FIGS. 3-4 , dotted-and-dashed line) the fracture geometry needs to be corrected as follows: the fracture length must be increased by about 40% and the width must be reduced by about 30%. Such a correction is well aligned with the constancy of the proppant mass inside the crack, i.e. the crack total volume remains unchanged. The modeled prediction results may be improved by using tracers that provide for differentiating the formation water from the fracturing fluid in case of the presence of a substantial amount of the formation water in the total production after the fracturing.
Claims (3)
1. A method for determining hydraulic fracture dimensions comprising:
creating a fracture in a borehole zone by injecting a polymer-based fracturing fluid into a wellbore so that a fracturing fluid filtrate penetrates into a formation around the fracture through a fracture surface and creates a filtrate zone around the fracture,
providing a numerical model for displacement of the fracturing fluid from the fracture and the filtrate zone, by a formation fluid, the model being made based upon given formation parameters, fracturing data, and predicted fracture dimensions,
using the model for calculating a change of a recovered fracturing fluid concentration in a produced fluid during production as a function of time and for calculating a change of a polymer concentration in the recovered fracturing fluid as a function of time,
putting the well into production,
periodically taking fluid samples from a well mouth during a fracturing fluid recovery,
measuring recovered fracturing fluid concentration and polymer concentration in the samples,
comparing the measurement results with the model calculations; and
determining fracture length and width on the basis of a match of the measurement results and the model calculations, the match being obtained by correcting the fracture length and width so as to provide a constant total fracture volume.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the fracturing fluid contains a tracer to differentiate the fracturing fluid from a formation water.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the polymer in the polymer-based fracturing fluid is guar.
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| RU2006118852/03A RU2324810C2 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2006-05-31 | Method for determining dimensions of formation hydraulic fracture |
| RU2006118852 | 2006-05-31 | ||
| PCT/RU2007/000272 WO2007139448A1 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2007-05-29 | Method for determining dimensions of a formation hydraulic fracture |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| US20090166029A1 US20090166029A1 (en) | 2009-07-02 |
| US8141632B2 true US8141632B2 (en) | 2012-03-27 |
Family
ID=38778869
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| US12/302,399 Expired - Fee Related US8141632B2 (en) | 2006-05-31 | 2007-05-29 | Method for hydraulic fracture dimensions determination |
Country Status (5)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| US (1) | US8141632B2 (en) |
| CA (1) | CA2653968C (en) |
| MX (1) | MX2008015192A (en) |
| RU (1) | RU2324810C2 (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2007139448A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20120143579A1 (en) * | 2009-06-03 | 2012-06-07 | Ian Ralph Collins | Method and system for configuring crude oil displacement system |
Families Citing this family (18)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US8157011B2 (en) * | 2010-01-20 | 2012-04-17 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | System and method for performing a fracture operation on a subterranean formation |
| US8967262B2 (en) * | 2011-09-14 | 2015-03-03 | Baker Hughes Incorporated | Method for determining fracture spacing and well fracturing using the method |
| CN103376469B (en) * | 2012-04-26 | 2017-09-26 | 中国石油集团长城钻探工程有限公司 | A kind of crack quantitative evaluation method based on ultrasonic image logging |
| CN105019875B (en) * | 2014-04-15 | 2018-05-01 | 中海石油(中国)有限公司上海分公司 | Human-cutting high slope interleaving agent evaluation method |
| CN105019876A (en) * | 2014-04-24 | 2015-11-04 | 中国石油化工股份有限公司 | Staged fracturing horizontal well water-flooding fracture interval and well spacing determining method |
| US10408955B2 (en) | 2014-11-19 | 2019-09-10 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Filtering microseismic events for updating and calibrating a fracture model |
| WO2016080981A1 (en) * | 2014-11-19 | 2016-05-26 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Reducing microseismic monitoring uncertainty |
| WO2016105351A1 (en) | 2014-12-23 | 2016-06-30 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Microseismic monitoring sensor uncertainty reduction |
| CN104564006B (en) * | 2015-02-04 | 2017-06-13 | 中国海洋石油总公司 | A kind of hypotonic gas well fracturing water-yielding capacity determination methods |
| CN105986798A (en) * | 2015-02-27 | 2016-10-05 | 中国石油化工股份有限公司 | Method for evaluating applicability of arc pulse fracturing technology |
| RU2585296C1 (en) * | 2015-03-27 | 2016-05-27 | Открытое акционерное общество "Нефтяная компания "Роснефть" | Method of determining drained hydraulic fracturing crack width and degree of sedimentation of proppant therein |
| US20180112525A1 (en) * | 2015-03-30 | 2018-04-26 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Method of Determination of Parameters of the Fracture Near Wellbore Zone Filled with Electrically Conductive Proppant Using Electromagnetic Logging |
| CN107524437B (en) * | 2016-06-21 | 2020-07-28 | 中国石油化工股份有限公司 | Method and system for determining opening of reservoir fracture |
| RU2649195C1 (en) * | 2017-01-23 | 2018-03-30 | Владимир Николаевич Ульянов | Method of determining hydraulic fracture parameters |
| CN107165619B (en) * | 2017-07-10 | 2019-11-19 | 中国地质大学（北京） | A kind of method for numerical simulation considering dynamic capillary force |
| CN110318742B (en) * | 2018-03-30 | 2022-07-15 | 中国石油化工股份有限公司 | Method and system for determining fracture closure length based on fractured well production data |
| CN108875148B (en) * | 2018-05-28 | 2021-01-19 | 中国石油大学(北京) | Method for establishing fracture-cavity type carbonate reservoir fracture-cavity distribution map, model and application |
| CN109886550B (en) * | 2019-01-23 | 2023-05-12 | 太原理工大学 | Comprehensive evaluation method for controlling strong mine fracturing effect of coal mine ground fracturing hard top plate |
Citations (14)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SU1298376A1 (en) | 1985-07-18 | 1987-03-23 | Институт Горного Дела Со Ан Ссср | Method of checking the size of crack formed by hydraulic rock fracturing |
| US4836280A (en) * | 1987-09-29 | 1989-06-06 | Halliburton Company | Method of evaluating subsurface fracturing operations |
| US5005643A (en) * | 1990-05-11 | 1991-04-09 | Halliburton Company | Method of determining fracture parameters for heterogenous formations |
| US5305211A (en) * | 1990-09-20 | 1994-04-19 | Halliburton Company | Method for determining fluid-loss coefficient and spurt-loss |
| US6076046A (en) * | 1998-07-24 | 2000-06-13 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Post-closure analysis in hydraulic fracturing |
| US20030054962A1 (en) * | 2001-08-14 | 2003-03-20 | England Kevin W. | Methods for stimulating hydrocarbon production |
| US20030196799A1 (en) * | 2002-04-18 | 2003-10-23 | Nguyen Philip D. | Method of tracking fluids produced from various zones in subterranean wells |
| US6659175B2 (en) * | 2001-05-23 | 2003-12-09 | Core Laboratories, Inc. | Method for determining the extent of recovery of materials injected into oil wells during oil and gas exploration and production |
| US20040016541A1 (en) * | 2002-02-01 | 2004-01-29 | Emmanuel Detournay | Interpretation and design of hydraulic fracturing treatments |
| US6691037B1 (en) * | 2002-12-12 | 2004-02-10 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Log permeability model calibration using reservoir fluid flow measurements |
| US20040177965A1 (en) * | 2003-01-28 | 2004-09-16 | Harris Phillip C. | Methods of fracturing subterranean zones to produce maximum productivity |
| US7114567B2 (en) * | 2003-01-28 | 2006-10-03 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Propped fracture with high effective surface area |
| US20070272407A1 (en) * | 2006-05-25 | 2007-11-29 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Method and system for development of naturally fractured formations |
| US20080133193A1 (en) * | 2006-12-01 | 2008-06-05 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Methods for estimating properties of a subterranean formation and/or a fracture therein |
Family Cites Families (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SU662891A1 (en) * | 1976-05-25 | 1979-05-15 | Barsegyan Levon Kh | Method of estimating coal stratum hydrofracturing zone area |
| RU2081315C1 (en) * | 1995-02-23 | 1997-06-10 | Институт горного дела СО РАН | Method for measuring dimensions of fissure in rock sample |
| RU2327154C2 (en) * | 2004-04-23 | 2008-06-20 | Шлюмберже Текнолоджи Б.В | Method and system for monitoring of cavities filled with liquid in the medium on the basis of boundary waves that are distributed on their surfaces |
-
2006
- 2006-05-31 RU RU2006118852/03A patent/RU2324810C2/en not_active IP Right Cessation
-
2007
- 2007-05-29 CA CA2653968A patent/CA2653968C/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2007-05-29 MX MX2008015192A patent/MX2008015192A/en active IP Right Grant
- 2007-05-29 WO PCT/RU2007/000272 patent/WO2007139448A1/en active Application Filing
- 2007-05-29 US US12/302,399 patent/US8141632B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (16)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SU1298376A1 (en) | 1985-07-18 | 1987-03-23 | Институт Горного Дела Со Ан Ссср | Method of checking the size of crack formed by hydraulic rock fracturing |
| US4836280A (en) * | 1987-09-29 | 1989-06-06 | Halliburton Company | Method of evaluating subsurface fracturing operations |
| US5005643A (en) * | 1990-05-11 | 1991-04-09 | Halliburton Company | Method of determining fracture parameters for heterogenous formations |
| US5305211A (en) * | 1990-09-20 | 1994-04-19 | Halliburton Company | Method for determining fluid-loss coefficient and spurt-loss |
| US6076046A (en) * | 1998-07-24 | 2000-06-13 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Post-closure analysis in hydraulic fracturing |
| US6659175B2 (en) * | 2001-05-23 | 2003-12-09 | Core Laboratories, Inc. | Method for determining the extent of recovery of materials injected into oil wells during oil and gas exploration and production |
| US20030054962A1 (en) * | 2001-08-14 | 2003-03-20 | England Kevin W. | Methods for stimulating hydrocarbon production |
| US20040016541A1 (en) * | 2002-02-01 | 2004-01-29 | Emmanuel Detournay | Interpretation and design of hydraulic fracturing treatments |
| US7111681B2 (en) * | 2002-02-01 | 2006-09-26 | Regents Of The University Of Minnesota | Interpretation and design of hydraulic fracturing treatments |
| US20030196799A1 (en) * | 2002-04-18 | 2003-10-23 | Nguyen Philip D. | Method of tracking fluids produced from various zones in subterranean wells |
| US6691037B1 (en) * | 2002-12-12 | 2004-02-10 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Log permeability model calibration using reservoir fluid flow measurements |
| US20040177965A1 (en) * | 2003-01-28 | 2004-09-16 | Harris Phillip C. | Methods of fracturing subterranean zones to produce maximum productivity |
| US7114567B2 (en) * | 2003-01-28 | 2006-10-03 | Schlumberger Technology Corporation | Propped fracture with high effective surface area |
| US20070272407A1 (en) * | 2006-05-25 | 2007-11-29 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Method and system for development of naturally fractured formations |
| US20080133193A1 (en) * | 2006-12-01 | 2008-06-05 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Methods for estimating properties of a subterranean formation and/or a fracture therein |
| US7472748B2 (en) * | 2006-12-01 | 2009-01-06 | Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Methods for estimating properties of a subterranean formation and/or a fracture therein |
Non-Patent Citations (7)
| Title |
|---|
| Barree R.D., et al., A Practical Guide to Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Technologies, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Sep. 29-Oct. 2, 2002, SPE 77442, pp. 1-12. |
| Cipolla, C.L. et al., State-of-the-Art in Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, Oct. 2000, SPE 64434, pp. 1-15. |
| Pope D., et al., Field Study of Guar Removal from Hydraulic Fractures, SPE Internatinal Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, Feb. 1995, SPE 31094, pp. 239-245. |
| Willberg, D.M., et al., Determination of the Effect of Formation Water on Fracture Fluid Cleanup Through Field Testing in East Texas Cotton Valley, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 1997, SPE 38620, pp. 531-543. |
| Willberg, D.M., et al., Optimization of Fracture Cleanup Using Flowback Analysis,SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Apr. 1998, SPe 39920, pp. 1-13. |
| Yang., H.B., et al., Improved Flowback Analysis to Assess Polymer Damage, SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklamoma City, OK, Mar. 1997,SPE 37444, pp. 485-496. |
| Yentov V.M., et a. Hydraulic Fracture Cleaning Process Simulation, Current Problems of the State and Development of the Russian Oil and Gas Complex, Abstract of the Report of the 6th Scientific and Technical Conference Devoted to the 75th Anniversary of the Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas , Jan. 26-27, 2005, pp. 400-401. |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20120143579A1 (en) * | 2009-06-03 | 2012-06-07 | Ian Ralph Collins | Method and system for configuring crude oil displacement system |
| US9103201B2 (en) * | 2009-06-03 | 2015-08-11 | Bp Exploration Operating Company Limited | Method and system for configuring crude oil displacement system |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| WO2007139448A1 (en) | 2007-12-06 |
| US20090166029A1 (en) | 2009-07-02 |
| MX2008015192A (en) | 2008-12-09 |
| CA2653968A1 (en) | 2007-12-06 |
| RU2006118852A (en) | 2007-12-20 |
| CA2653968C (en) | 2012-02-07 |
| RU2324810C2 (en) | 2008-05-20 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US8141632B2 (en) | Method for hydraulic fracture dimensions determination | |
| US11725500B2 (en) | Method for determining hydraulic fracture orientation and dimension | |
| CN107989588B (en) | Method and system for testing oil-gas-water profile of each section of horizontal well by using environment-friendly tracer | |
| US7580797B2 (en) | Subsurface layer and reservoir parameter measurements | |
| US20140352949A1 (en) | Integrating rock ductility with fracture propagation mechanics for hydraulic fracture design | |
| CN107923239A (en) | The cracking initiation through hydrocarbon filling carried out before shale pressure break is tested | |
| Lin et al. | Effect of fracture geometry on well production in hydraulic-fractured tight oil reservoirs | |
| Jones Jr et al. | Estimating reservoir pressure from early flowback data | |
| CN111255442B (en) | Method for evaluating fracturing fracture by using interference well testing theory | |
| Jiawei et al. | Experimental investigation on the characteristics of acid-etched fractures in acid fracturing by an improved true tri-axial equipment | |
| Oeth et al. | Characterization of small scale heterogeneity to predict acid fracture performance | |
| EP4194663A2 (en) | Surveillance using particulate tracers | |
| RU2577865C1 (en) | Method of indicating investigation of wells and interwell space | |
| RU2619613C2 (en) | Systems and methods to optimize and analyse underground wells and fluids by inert gases | |
| Ling et al. | A new approach to estimate invasion radius of water-based-drilling-fluid filtrate to evaluate formation damage caused by overbalanced drilling | |
| US10386215B2 (en) | Method for monitoring a flow using distributed acoustic sensing | |
| Lorenz et al. | Measurement and analysis of fractures in core | |
| Fan et al. | Field experience and numerical investigations of minifrac tests with flowback in low-permeability formations | |
| Avasthi et al. | In-situ stress evaluation in the McElroy field, West Texas | |
| US20200018159A1 (en) | Systems and Methods to Identify and Inhibit Spider Web Borehole Failure in Hydrocarbon Wells | |
| Beatty | Characterization of small scale heterogeneity for prediction of acid fracture performance | |
| Shurunov et al. | Application of the HW with MSHF investigations to manage the development of low-permeability reservoirs | |
| US11352883B2 (en) | In-situ rheology behavior characterization using data analytics techniques | |
| US20120199345A1 (en) | Unconventional Gas Fracture Logging Method and Apparatus | |
| Perez et al. | Increasing Reliability of Stress Characterization through Optimum Design and Sensitivity Analysis of Fracture Injection Tests, Coupled with Enhanced Geomechanical Analysis |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AS | Assignment |
Owner name: SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, MASSACHUSETTS Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:MAKSIMENKO, ANTON ALEKSANDROVICH;THIERCELIN, MARC JEAN;REEL/FRAME:022271/0222;SIGNING DATES FROM 20081209 TO 20081219 Owner name: SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, MASSACHUSETTS Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:MAKSIMENKO, ANTON ALEKSANDROVICH;THIERCELIN, MARC JEAN;SIGNING DATES FROM 20081209 TO 20081219;REEL/FRAME:022271/0222 |
|
| ZAAA | Notice of allowance and fees due |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: NOA |
|
| ZAAB | Notice of allowance mailed |
Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: MN/=. |
|
| STCF | Information on status: patent grant |
Free format text: PATENTED CASE |
|
| FPAY | Fee payment |
Year of fee payment: 4 |
|
| MAFP | Maintenance fee payment |
Free format text: PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEE, 8TH YEAR, LARGE ENTITY (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: M1552); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY Year of fee payment: 8 |
|
| FEPP | Fee payment procedure |
Free format text: MAINTENANCE FEE REMINDER MAILED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: REM.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
| LAPS | Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: EXP.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
| STCH | Information on status: patent discontinuation |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362 |
|
| FP | Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee |
Effective date: 20240327 |